coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Elazığ.
7.  On 20 June 1991 the applicant was seriously injured in an explosion of a bomb placed in the garden of the Military barracks in Gaziosmanpaşa district of İstanbul. He was ten years old at the time of the events.
8.  On 10 February 1992 the applicant’s father, acting as his legal guardian, filed a petition with the Ministry of Internal Affairs requesting compensation for the damage the applicant had sustained. The Ministry of Internal Affairs rejected this request on 15 April 1992.
9.  On 3 June 1992 the applicant’s father brought an action for compensation before the İstanbul Administrative Court against the Ministry of Internal Affairs (hereinafter “the respondent”).
10.  On 16 June 1992 the case was notified to the respondent which submitted its observations on 11 August 1992.
11.  On 3 March 1993 the İstanbul Administrative Court dismissed the respondent’s preliminary objection.
12.  Between 3 March 1993 and 4 December 1994 the first-instance court took certain procedural decisions on 10 December 1993, 27 June 1994 and 16 September 1994.
13.  On 4 December 1994 the İstanbul Administrative Court considered that there was neither fault nor negligence attributable to the authorities and dismissed the case.
14.  On 30 January 1995 the applicant appealed against the aforementioned decision and requested the suspension of the execution of the judgment. On 30 January 1995 the applicant paid the expenses pertaining to the appeal procedure. The applicant was warned that the amount paid was insufficient and on 30 March 1995 he paid the remaining costs of the appeal procedure.
15.  On 3 May 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for a suspension of the execution of the judgment of 4 December 1994.
16.  On 16 November 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. The court referred to the doctrine of “social risk”, which did not require the establishment of any causal link between the harmful action and the loss, and reasoned that the damage caused by terrorism should be shared by the society as a whole in accordance with the principles of “justice” and “social state”.
17.  On 15 March 1996 the respondent requested the rectification of the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court.
18.  On 9 March 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the request of the respondent.
19.  On 30 September 1998 the Istanbul Administrative Court decided to abide by the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court.
20.  On 27 November 1998 the case-file was sent to an expert. On 29 December 1998 the expert submitted its report to the Court.
21.  On 17 February 1999 the Istanbul Administrative Court awarded the applicant an amount of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage with legal interest running from 18 February 1992.
22.  On 30 April 1999 the judgment became final.
23.  On 18 September 2000 the applicant was paid the due amount of compensation.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in the city of Pavlograd, Ukraine.
5.  The applicant is the former employee of the Pavlogradska State Mine. He is suffering from an occupational disease.
6.  On 24 January 2002 the Pavlograd City Court ordered the mine to pay the applicant UAH 24,352[1] in occupational disability allowance arrears.
7.  On 27 February 2002 the Pavlograd City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.
8.  According to the Government, the judgment was partially enforced in instalments: during the periods of April – December 2002 and August – December 2003 the applicant received a total of UAH 10,227[2], and on 19 July 2004 he received UAH 1,972[3].
9.  On 12 October 2004 the applicant was paid the remaining amount of the judgment debt (UAH 12,153[4]).
10.  On 15 October 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the full enforcement of the judgment given in the applicant’s favour.
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine. She is a retired judge of the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal.
5.  On 5 April 2002 the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv ordered the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine to pay the applicant UAH 4,187.97[1] in pension arrears (involving a special retired judges’ allowance). The court held that the amount of the award should be seized from a specific account of the State Treasury.
6.  The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 17 May 2002. On the same date the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv submitted the writ of execution for that judgment to the Pecherskyi District Bailiffs’ Service of Kyiv for initiation of the enforcement proceedings.
7.  On 22 December 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service returned the writ to the applicant because of the absence of relevant allocations from the State Budget.
8.  The applicant challenged the decision of 22 December 2003 before the Golosiyvskyi District Court of Kyiv. On 26 April 2004 the court found in part for the applicant and quashed the decision of 22 December 2003. It also ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to renew the enforcement proceedings.
9.  On 29 April 2005 the judgment was enforced in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 29 January 1996 the applicant brought an action against several respondents, claiming fees for the use of garages owned by him. Some defendants brought counterclaims against the applicant, claiming that they had made payments for the use of certain garages in respect of which their ownership was later established by court decisions.
6.  The Buda Central District Court held hearings on 27 June and 13 December 1996, as well as on 10 and 28 February 1997. On 10 June 1997 an expert was appointed.
Further hearings took place on 11 July and 7 November 1997.
7.  On 19 November 1997 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action and ordered him to pay the claimed amounts to the respondents.
8.  On appeal, on 24 February 1999 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing. On 14 May 1999 it partly changed the first-instance judgment and reduced the amount payable by the applicant.
9.  On 26 July 1999 the applicant filed a petition for a review by the Supreme Court. On 20 and 21 October 1999 the respondents filed their observations in reply. The applicant submitted a reply on 8 December 1999.
10.  On 28 June 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision. This decision was served on the applicant on 3 September 2001.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the city of Lugansk, Ukraine.
5.  On 17 April 2000 the Leninsky District Court of Lugansk ordered the State Enterprise “Luganskyi Stankobudivnyi Zavod” to pay the applicant UAH 1,219.10[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
6.  On 20 July 2000 the Leninsky District Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.
7.  In May 2001 the applicant lodged with the Leninsky District Court of Lugansk a complaint alleging the unlawfulness of the Bailiffs’ Service’s inactivity in respect of the enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 15 May 2001 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs. The applicant did not appeal in cassation against that decision.
8.  In March 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the Bailiffs’ Service seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgment. On 7 May 2002 the court rejected the applicant’s claim as being unsubstantiated.
9.  On 12 September 2002 and 5 May 2003, respectively, the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of 7 May 2002.
10.  In two instalments of 11 and 27 October 2004 the amount of the judgment debt was transferred to the Bailiffs’ deposit account. On the same dates the applicant was invited to provide the Bailiffs’ Service with his bank account details in order that they transfer the amount of the award.
11.  The applicant informed the Bailiffs’ Service that he did not wish to take the money before the Court decided on his application.
4.  The first applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the city of Zhovti Vody, Ukraine. The second applicant was born in 1980 and lives in the same city. They both were employed by the Electron-Gaz Company, in which the State held 99.96% of the share capital.
5.  By two decisions of 9 March and 21 December 1999, the Zhovti Vody Town Court ordered the company to pay the first applicant a total amount of UAH 4,118.15[1] in salary arrears.
6.  In April 1999 and January 2000, respectively, the Zhovti Vody Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgments.
7.  On 29 December 1999 the Zhovti Vody Town Court ordered the same company to pay the second applicant UAH 1,164[2] in salary arrears.
8.  On 17 January 2000 the Zhovti Vody Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.
9.  By a number of letters of 2002 and 2003, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicants that the judgments given in their favour could not be enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.
10.  On 21 December 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the full enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants’ favour.
11.  According to the applicants, the judgments were fully enforced on 22 December 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Eger.
5.  In 1990 the applicant hired two individuals to construct a well for him. Since they had not completed the work in due time, in December 1990 he brought an action with a view to obliging them to complete the job. In the alternative, he claimed damages.
6.  In response to the applicant’s motion for bias, the Supreme Court appointed the Mezőkövesd District Court to hear the case. After having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert, on 27 September 1994 this court dismissed the applicant’s action.
7.  In pursuit of the applicant’s repeated motion for bias, the Supreme Court appointed the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court to deal with his appeal. On 11 October 1995 that court quashed the District Court’s decision and remitted the case.
8.  On 11 June 1996 the Supreme Court appointed the Debrecen District Court to hear the case in the resumed proceedings. After having held several hearings and obtained the supplementary opinion of an expert, on 7 October1998 that court dismissed the applicant’s action.
9.  On 9 June 1999 the Regional Court quashed this decision and, again, remitted the case.
10.  In the resumed proceedings, the Debrecen District Court held several hearings and obtained the opinion of another expert. It heard several witnesses and the expert. On 18 December 2000 it dismissed the applicant’s action.
11.  On 21 March 2001 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
12.  On 19 June 2001 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to seek a review, in accordance with section 271 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, given that the amount of the claim fell below the threshold requirements for leave to be considered.
8.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Gross-Rohrheim (Germany).
9.  On 10 August 1989 the applicant registered his marriage with Ms G. in Novosibirsk. After the marriage they moved to St. Petersburg.
10.  On 12 May 1995, during her stay at her parents’ home in Novosibirsk, Ms G. gave birth to a son to whom she gave her surname, despite objections from the applicant. Shortly thereafter the birth was registered; the applicant was named as the child’s father in the register.
11.  In late September 1995 Ms G. and her son returned to St. Petersburg. The applicant believed that he was the boy’s father and treated him as his own.
12.  On 28 March 1996 the applicant moved to Germany. Until September 1997 he waited for Ms G. and the son to join him there. However, in a letter of September 1997, Ms G. informed him that she had no plans to continue their marriage and would be applying for maintenance for the child. At about that time the applicant’s relatives in Novosibirsk advised him that he was not the boy’s father.
13.  On 16 December 1997 the applicant petitioned for divorce and brought an action contesting paternity. On 12 April 1999 the divorce was granted.
14.  On 16 November 2000 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Novosibirsk delivered judgment in the paternity action. It noted that genetic (DNA) tests of 28 June 1999 and 5 June 2000 demonstrated that the applicant could not be the boy’s father. Although Ms G. maintained that the applicant was the father, in the absence of any doubts as to the accuracy of the tests, the court established that the applicant was not the father of her son.
The District Court ruled, however, that the case was governed by the RSFSR[1] Marriage and Family Code of 30 July 1969 because the child had been born before 1 March 1996, that is to say before the new Family Code of the Russian Federation came into effect. The RSFSR Marriage and Family Code set a one-year limitation period for an action contesting paternity, the starting point of which was calculated from the date the putative father was informed that he had been registered as the father. As the applicant had not contested paternity when the child was born and had only applied to the courts in December 1997, after the expiry of the time-limit, his action was held to be time-barred. The fact that a new Family Code had been introduced which did not lay down a limitation period for paternity actions was irrelevant because it was only applicable to family-law disputes arising after 1 March 1996.
15.  On 15 March 2001, on an appeal by the applicant, the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 16 November 2000.
16.  On 20 April and 26 October 2001 the Novosibirsk Regional Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, respectively, refused requests by the applicant for supervisory review.
17.  On 12 September 2002 the Justice of the Peace of the Third Court Circuit of the Zheleznodorozhniy District of Novosibirsk granted Ms G.’s claim for maintenance and made a charging order over the applicant’s interest in a flat.
18.  On 15 September 2003 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Novosibirsk upheld the maintenance order.
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Split.
5.  The applicant was a holder of a specially protected tenancy on a flat in Split. Under the legislation in force, all holders of specially protected tenancies were entitled to buy their flats under favourable terms, provided that they purchased only one flat. In 1993 the applicant purchased that flat and subsequently donated it to her son.
6.  The applicant’s late husband had a specially protected tenancy on another flat in Split. He died in 1995, before he could exercise the right to purchase that flat.
7.  The applicant, as her husband’s heir, instituted administrative proceedings for acknowledgment of her specially protected tenancy. Her tenancy on the second flat was acknowledged on 17 April 1997.
8.  On 23 October 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu), requesting the court to order the City of Split to conclude a flat purchase agreement with her.
9.  On 30 April 1999 the applicant filed a motion for withdrawal of the first-instance judge. On 10 May 1999 her motion was dismissed because there was no evidence that the judge was biased.
10.  On 13 July 1999 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that the applicant had already bought one flat as a holder of a specially protected tenancy and that she had no right to buy another one.
11.  On 13 October 2000 the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) dismissed the applicant’s appeal for the same reasons.
12.  In 2000 the applicant proposed to the competent State Attorney’s Office (Državno odvjetništvo) to file a motion for the protection of legality (zahtjev za zaštitu zakonitosti), an extraordinary remedy under the domestic law. Her proposal was denied on 20 February 2001.
13.  Meanwhile, on 4 December 2000 the applicant also filed a constitutional complaint claiming that the Municipal Court and the County Court, in their judgments of 13 July 1999 and 13 October 2000, had violated her right to respect for home and property.
14.  The Government submit that throughout the proceedings the applicant was filing various submissions to the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). In one of them, a letter dated 27 February 2001, the applicant requested the Constitutional Court to “terminate all judicial actions and remand the case to the County Court”. Further letters of the applicant, from November 2001 onwards, consisted of rush notes.
15.  On 30 June 2004 the Constitutional Court dismissed her complaint as ill-founded.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Svitlovodsk, Kirovograd region, Ukraine.
5.  In 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Svitlovodskiy Town Court against her former employer, the State-owned “VAT Chysti Metaly” company, to recover salary arrears.
6.  On 2 November 1999 the court awarded the applicant UAH 970.37[1] in salary arrears. On 18 November 1999 the Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings.
7.  In February 2001, upon the applicant’s request, UAH 150 from the above judgment debt were transferred to the Municipal Heating Service to cover the applicant’s debt to the Service.
8.  On 25 April 2002 the same court awarded the applicant UAH 1,333.37[2] in compensation for the delay in enforcement of the judgment of 2 November 1999. On 20 June 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings.
9.  By letter of 16 October 2002, the local Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgments in her favour could not be enforced due to the debtor’s lack of funds, and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 26 November 2001.
10.  On 12 May 2003 the enforcement proceedings against the debtor were suspended due to the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against it. On 10 June 2004 the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Commercial Court approved the recovery plan for the debtor.
11.  On 11 March 2005 the debtor made a postal money order in favour of the applicant for the outstanding debts under the judgments of 2 November 1999 and 25 April 2002. The applicant refused to receive the money, and 10 days later it was transferred to the account of the Bailiffs’ Service.
12.  On 31 March 2005 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that she should provide them with details of her bank account, to which the money could be transferred.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the town of Belozerskoe, Donetsk region of Ukraine.
5.  In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Dobropolsky Town Court against his former employer, the State-owned “Novodonetskaya” mining company, to recover disability benefit arrears. On 3 June 2002 the court awarded the applicant UAH 50,822.44[1]. On 9 July 2002 the enforcement proceedings were initiated.
6.  In September 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Dobropolsky Town Court against the Dobropolsky Town Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment of 3 June 2002 expeditiously.
7.  On 18 October 2002 the court found for the applicant and ordered the Bailiffs to enforce the judgment immediately.
8.  By 7 December 2004 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full and the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings on that date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Mersin.
5.  On 12 March 1996 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Mersin in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicant when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 17 December 1996, the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance awarded him additional compensation of 610,659,800 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 27 April 1994, the date of the transfer of the title-deeds.
7.  On 2 November 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance.
8.  On 17 May 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicant TRL 1,860,240,000 (approximately 3,339 euros (EUR), including interest.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and resides in the town of Zhovti Vody, the Dnipropetrovsk Region.
5.  On 28 May 1999 and 18 October 2000 the Zhovti Vody City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) awarded the applicant a total of UAH 5,712[1] against the State owned Electrongaz Company (hereafter “the Company”) in salary arrears. Both judgments became final and were sent to the Zhovti Vody City Bailiffs’ Office (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) for compulsory enforcement.
6.  In a letter of 24 January 2003, the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the enforcement of the judgments in his favour was impeded by the entry into force of the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property 2001, which barred the attachment and sale of the Company’s capital assets.
7.  On 7 March 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Commercial Court (hereafter “the Commercial Court”) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction barring any debt recovery. On 10 October 2003 the Commercial Court approved the rehabilitation proposal and appointed a trustee to run the bankruptcy rehabilitation of the Company’s business.
8.  On 21 October 2004 the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s favour as both awards were paid to him in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Mersin.
5.  On 12 March 1996 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicant in Mersin in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicant when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 30 December 1996 the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance awarded him additional compensation of 962,996,880 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 12 March 1996, the date of the transfer of the title-deeds.
7.  On 29 June 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance.
8.  On 16 May 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicant the amount of TRL 2,861,840,000, including interest.